Local governments broke their own housing markets, and they will have to fix them. Evidence suggests that in many of the Northeastern and Western communities where price-income ratios are highest, those high housing prices result from excessive land use regulation—that is, from policy choices of local governments. Making housing more affordable to middle-income families requires those same governments to revise their zoning and allow more housing to be built, especially near jobs and transportation. States can encourage better local regulation through carrots and sticks, if they figure out the politics. At the federal level, HUD could more effectively use its bully pulpit to call out communities that obstruct new housing, and share information on how to build housing more cheaply.
Yes, some love for San Ho…
Top ten markets present little surprise
Emerging Trends didn’t redraw the map with its predictions for the top 10 markets for 2020, favoring large and mid-sized metros in the “smile states” (west and east coast, plus the Sun Belt). By and large, the cities on the list have benefitted from a combination of tech-driven growth and booming populations: Austin, Raleigh/Durham, Nashville, Charlotte, Boston, Dallas/Fort Worth, Orlando, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and Seattle round out the top 10.
Number 1 on the list is Austin
RE market seems to correlate to FAANMG. They peaked in Oct 2018 and many are returning to that high now. RE also peaked in Oct 2018 and is recovering.
Some areas seem to be doing well
I suggested before in another thread that we might have a population in California that is peaking at 40 million. California has only seen a rising population in last 5 decades. If the population does not grow, where would an extra supply of homes go? And what will happen to prices?
Why is it a problem? No people, no problem.
Solve the housing problem where the younger people are going.
Good point, that’s why it’s best to analyze at a smaller scale, i.e. township vs. township or village vs. village. For example, San Bernardino County population has not decreased since the civil war 150 years ago. People are flocking there in droves and real estate investments there are much safer than Sterling in a vault plus they offer handsome dividends to and eu residents. On the other hand, people are fleeing certain areas within California and so those areas could be at risk of depreciation:chart_with_downwards_trend:. Yucca Valley and Phelan looking good, growing .
The population of San Bernardio has only grown by 2.9% (about 5000) since 2010 (in about 9 years). Does not seem like a very rapid increase.
The US is one of the few developed nations that is still growing and expected to grow thru 2050. If nothing else, California will benefit from the nations growth. Plus the increased movement of population into a few dense urban areas, will result in more people in the Bay Area from rural-urban migration
A better headline would have been:
Why can’t California pass more housing legislation to steal from the landlords and the current residents and pass it on to tenants and new residents. I am afraid of some of the very high-density neighborhoods become low-quality housing may become ghost towns if they fail to attract new residents.
I have seen some people who want to move out of great mall are, a high-density mecca in Milpitas, CA